Two disciplines of looking
Chess and drawing teach the same thing by two routes: recognising a configuration before calculating, and agreeing to calculate when recognition fails.
Two disciplines have taken my evenings for a year, and I notice they say the same thing. In chess as in drawing, the beginner calculates everything and the experienced recognises first, then calculates where recognition runs out. It is also the difference between reading a system and deducing it line by line.
A coach walking students through games, saying out loud what he is looking at. What you get is therefore not the right move but the reasoning that found it, complete with the candidates dropped and why they were dropped. What strikes you is the room given to unremarkable positions, where there is nothing to find and a decision is still required.
An autobiography useful for one reason: it shows the cost of preparation. Behind every intuition we admire, years of configurations filed away in memory, which is what the word talent is most often used to avoid saying.
Dated, peremptory, and the best book on construction I know. It teaches setting a figure down in volumes and action lines before any outline, and choosing a clear read over a flattering finish. The advice holds for an architecture diagram.